Re: [ippm] RFC8321bis and 8889bis

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Sun, 05 September 2021 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA963A0C00 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 14:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I7aTsVJpEP0p for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 14:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E24E3A0BFE for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 14:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4H2lbl3HYSz67PMv; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 05:51:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.8; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 23:53:15 +0200
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.008; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 23:53:15 +0200
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] RFC8321bis and 8889bis
Thread-Index: AQHXoNyJrgu91InVX06THGAJcAf2WKuTddsggAAlFACAAlTb8A==
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2021 21:53:15 +0000
Message-ID: <762ca8b9ca6e449a9f174d3df452feda@huawei.com>
References: <CAM4esxRP=bp7LyQZ1_B5_hcjYgFs5bFnuKm-keWp5yDS_X7Lxg@mail.gmail.com> <47ed2045398f48579a5251b40dabfceb@huawei.com> <AM6PR07MB5544B7C40EDE41996F08D647A2D09@AM6PR07MB5544.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR07MB5544B7C40EDE41996F08D647A2D09@AM6PR07MB5544.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.220.65.88]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/cjJoXq6gMhzEG1BixqlLOxpHylM>
Subject: Re: [ippm] RFC8321bis and 8889bis
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2021 21:53:26 -0000

Hi Tom, All,
Note that, in this specific case, the new I-D will not add nothing more to the original RFC 8321 and RFC 8889. It will elevate Alternate Marking to Proposed Standard by picking only the deployed methods from the two RFCs. Therefore, it will be reused most of the text and omitted the parts related to the experiment.
For this reason, I'm just trying to figure out what can be the fastest way to progress.
Probably Martin, Ian and Tommy could give important advices here.

Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> 
Sent: Saturday, September 4, 2021 1:22 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>om>; Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>om>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] RFC8321bis and 8889bis

From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
Sent: 04 September 2021 08:08

Hi Martin, All,
I can surely start working on a bis document and lead it together with those who already expressed interest.
I'm just wondering if the new I-D on RFC8321bis and RFC8889bis can be submitted directly to IESG as individual submission with the help of a sponsoring AD or as IPPM WG document.
What's your thought?

<tp>

Two WG documents.  Anything else creates more work for an AD and may lead to procedural  issues - e.g. lack of IETF consensus - at a later date.

Tom Petch
an interested bystander.

Regards,

Giuseppe


From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Martin Duke
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 5:55 PM
To: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: [ippm] RFC8321bis and 8889bis

Hello IPPM,

Last Call on the status change still has some way to run, but there is already quite a bit of resistance to doing this without a bis document.

Consider this a formal invitation to get the process started. A bis document should eliminate both experiment-related boilerplate, and any bits of the design that we don't feel are mature enough for Proposed Standard.

Submit a -00!
Thanks
Martin